Introduction:
The Supreme Court’s order in In Re: 2 Million Lives At Risk, Contamination in Jojari River, Rajasthan points to an important doctrine of environmental law. The granting of lawful permission or a mining lease does not in itself ensure that the activity is environmentally safe. The matter relates to the ongoing destruction of the Jojari-Bandi-Luni river ecosystem due to the continued illegal mining of bajri (river sand and gravel), industrial contamination and depletion of groundwater which have endangered the natural environment as well as the lives of people residing there. The Court has clearly stated that the State cannot take environmental protection merely as an exercise in filling up papers. It has to ensure that mining and industrial activities are in compliance with the environmental norms and do not cause damage to the riverbed, river banks, recharge of groundwater or natural flow of rivers. The significance of the order lies in the fact that it takes into account not just the persons engaged in illegal mining but also the possibility of the lapse or complicity of public servants.
Background of the Case
The matter was initiated due to environmental pollution of the Jojari, Bandi and Luni rivers in Rajasthan. In previous orders, including the order dated 29 September 2026, the Supreme Court had issued directions to the State for dealing with unauthorized discharge points, illegal industrial activity and mining, improving the infrastructure of effluent treatment, protection of natural flow of rivers, and preparation of time-bound Comprehensive Resolution Plan. A High-Level Ecosystem Oversight Committee had raised serious concerns in its report. One of these concerns was the proposed exercise by the Water Resources Department regarding the redefinition of the river widths based on the flow of sewage and treated wastewater. This would have reduced the recorded width of the Luni at Bhituja from 1,172 metres to eight metres. The Committee had also pointed out the extensive and unscientific mining of five contiguous plots in Village Kanana involving an area of 458.6 hectares and 8.1 kilometres of riverbed. There were concerns regarding illegal mining, depleting of groundwater in the Balotra region, and lack of progress in Common Effluent Treatment Plants and Zero Liquid Discharge facilities.
Key points:
- The Supreme Court prevented the State of Rajasthan from permitting to start any new industrial units near the river ecosystem until the scientific determination of the High Flood Line and buffer zones is made.
- The Court ordered that there should be the creation of an additional protective zone of 100 meters from both sides of the recorded river limits. There should also be a prohibition on establishing Red Category industries within 500 meters of these river limits.
- An order was given by the Court to the State that an SIT should be formed within three days under the leadership of an officer not below the rank of Inspector General of Police.
- The SIT was tasked with examining the role of the public officials in aiding in the process of illegal mining by collusion, negligence, or omission. It was further required to present a progress report before the next hearing.
- The Central Ground Water Authority (CGWA) was ordered to join in the proceedings to evaluate the availability of water, water extraction and depletion in Jodhpur, Balotra and Pali. The Court further directed to create a system for receiving complaints in an anonymous manner for violation of mining laws and other environmental rules.
- Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD): It was directed that the State formulates a financial policy for those industries which are setting up zero liquid discharge systems along with laying down pipelines for using recycled water. The matter was fixed for further hearing on 27 November 2026.
Analysis
The key component of the order is the Court’s differentiation of securing mining lease from mining in an environmentally friendly way. The mere granting of the lease according to procedure does not mean that mining is safe for the river. The Court was worried that the State seemed to use subsequent leases to justify the existence of the illegal mining areas. The acceptance of such an approach without any criticism could transform the environmental violations into activities which will be regularised afterwards. Thus, the Court made the decision to demand an independent scientific examination of cumulative environmental impact, including river flow, riverbeds and banks’ state, replenishment capacity and groundwater recharge. Such an approach is necessary because mining in adjoining areas can lead to cumulative damages that cannot be established separately for each mining lease. The order also considers the fact that river pollution cannot be solved separately since mining, industrial discharges and groundwater depletion are interrelated problems. Thus, the Court refused the idea that the establishment of committees, registration of cases and announcement of projects are enough measures.
Conclusion
The order is a clear indication that all permissions given in the context of the environment should work within the ambit of ecological sustainability. From the Supreme Court’s order, it is evident that the State cannot use mining leases, enforcement statistics or administrative action as reasons for environmental damage. What counts is whether the State is able to protect the river ecosystem from any more damage and help in restoration. Directions relating to protective zones, restrictions on new industries, SIT investigation, assessment of groundwater, anonymous complaints and Zero Liquid Discharge infrastructure can be used to tackle the problems and their causes. On the other hand, implementation of the order will be determined by the good faith of the State and proper monitoring by the authorities concerned. The investigation will have to focus not just on illegal operators but also on those officials who helped in violation of the law. The State will have to assess the impact of industrial and mining activities based on scientific data. In this case, the Court has not treated the issue as closed. Instead, the matter has been left part-heard and listed for 27 November 2026.
“PRIME LEGAL is a National Award-winning law firm with over two decades of experience across diverse legal sectors. We are dedicated to setting the standard for legal excellence in civil, criminal, and family law.”
Written by – Krittika Sengupta
